GOP poops on Ryan plan

Gun Control
The 2nd Amendment strictly limits any interference with gun ownership by saying: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation.

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.

The Constitution Party upholds the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. We oppose attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and stand against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition.

We emphasize that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen's protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.

We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.

We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.



Health Care and Government
James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).
The Constitution Party opposes the governmentalization and bureaucratization of American medicine. Government regulation and subsidy constitutes a threat to both the quality and availability of patient-oriented health care and treatment.

Hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers should be accountable to patients - not to politicians, insurance bureaucrats, or HMO Administrators.

If the supply of medical care is controlled by the federal government, then officers of that government will determine which demand is satisfied. The result will be the rationing of services, higher costs, poorer results - and the power of life and death transferred from caring physicians to unaccountable political overseers.

We denounce any civil government entity using age or any other personal characteristic to: preclude people and insurance firms from freely contracting for medical coverage; conscript such people into socialized medicine, e.g., Medicare; or prohibit these people from using insurance payments and/or their own money to obtain medical services in addition to, or to augment the quality of, those services prescribed by the program.

We applaud proposals for employee-controlled "family coverage" health insurance plans based on cash value life insurance principles.

The federal government has no Constitutional provision to regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to have access to medical care, supplies or treatments. We advocate, therefore, the elimination of the federal Food and Drug Administration, as it has been the federal agency primarily responsible for prohibiting beneficial products, treatments, and technologies here in the United States that are freely available in much of the rest of the civilized world.

We affirm freedom of choice of practitioner and treatment for all citizens for their health care.

We support the right of patients to seek redress of their grievances through the courts against insurers and/or HMO's.

We condemn the misrepresentations made by the Federal Administration in securing passage of the recently enacted Medicare prescription drug bill, and the use of such legislation to secure government subsidies to special interests, such as the HMOs, and to protect the artificially high cost to consumers of prescription drugs.




Immigration
US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; James Madison: "When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses … aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens…"
We affirm the integrity of the international borders of these United States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal government to guard and to protect those borders, including the regulation of the numbers and of the qualifications of immigrants into the country.

Each year approximately one million legal immigrants and almost as many illegal aliens enter these United States. These immigrants - including illegal aliens - have been made eligible for various kinds of public assistance, including housing, education, Social Security, and legal services. This unconstitutional drain on the federal Treasury is having a severe and adverse impact on our economy, increasing the cost of government at federal, state, and local levels, adding to the tax burden, and stressing the fabric of society. The mass importation of people with low standards of living threatens the wage structure of the American worker and the labor balance in our country.

We oppose the abuse of the H-1B and L-1 visa provisions of the immigration act which are displacing American workers with foreign.

We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration.

We also insist that every individual group and/or private agency which requests the admission of an immigrant to the U.S, on whatever basis, be required to commit legally to provide housing and sustenance for such immigrants, bear full responsibility for the economic independence of the immigrants, and post appropriate bonds to seal such covenants.

The Constitution Party demands that the federal government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on these United States, any state, or any citizen of these United States.

We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country.

We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens. We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion.

We oppose bilingual ballots. We insist that those who wish to take part in the electoral process and governance of this nation be required to read and comprehend basic English as a precondition of citizenship. We support English as the official language for all governmental business by these United States.



The Judiciary
We call attention to the following provisions of the Constitution:
Article 3, Section 1:
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". Note that the tenure of Federal Judges is not for life, but merely "during good behaviour".

Also, Article 2, Section 4:
"all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
"All civil officers" clearly includes Judges.

And the Constitution says regarding jurisdiction:
(Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2) "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction … with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Note that the Constitution gives Congress the power to make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

And regarding the duty of Judges:
(Article 6, Section 1, Clause 3) "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".
Which Constitution must they swear to support?
The United States Constitution does not provide for lifetime appointment of federal judges, but only for a term of office during good behavior. We support Congressional enforcement of the Constitutional rule of good behavior and to restrain judicial activism by properly removing offending judges through the process of impeachment provided for in Article I, § 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Furthermore, Congress must exert the power it possesses to prohibit all federal courts from hearing cases which Congress deems to be outside federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III, § 2 of the Constitution.

We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand.

We deny the validity of judicial rulings that use foreign court rulings to overturn U.S. precedent.




Money and Banking
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 grants only to Congress the power "To coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof", with no provision for such power to be delegated to any other group.

Congress began immediately to fulfill this obligation with the Mint Act of 1792, establishing a US Mint for producing Gold and Silver based coin, prescribing the value and content of each coin, and affixing the penalty of death to those who debase such currency.

Article 1, Section 10: "No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts".

Thus, the Constitution forbade the States from accepting or using anything other than a Gold and Silver based currency.
Money functions as both a medium of exchange and a symbol of a nation's morality.

The Founding Fathers established a system of "coin" money that was designed to prohibit the "improper and wicked" manipulation of the nation's medium of exchange while guaranteeing the power of the citizens' earnings.

The federal government has departed from the principle of "coin" money as defined by the U.S. Constitution and the Mint Act of 1792 and has granted unconstitutional control of the nation's monetary and banking system to the private Federal Reserve System.

The Constitution Party recommends a substantive reform of the system of Federal taxation. In order for such reform to be effective, it is necessary that these United States:

•Return to the money system set forth in the Constitution;
•Repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and reform the current Federal Reserve banks to become clearing houses only; and
•Prohibit fractional reserve banking.
It is our intention that no system of "debt money" shall be imposed on the people of these United States. We support a debt free, interest free money system.




Personal and Private Property Security
The 4th Amendment states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fifth Amendment further protects property, by stating:
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
We affirm the Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including arbitrary or de facto registration, general and unwarranted electronic surveillance, national computer databases, and national identification cards. We also reaffirm that civil governments must be strictly limited in their powers to intrude upon the persons and private property of individual citizens, in particular, that no place be searched and no thing be seized, except upon proof of probable cause that a crime has been committed and the proper judicial warrant issued.

We further reaffirm the common-law rule that protects the people from any search or seizure whatsoever when that search or seizure violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

We deplore and oppose vigorously legislation and executive action that deprive the people of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights under claims of necessity to "combat terrorism" or to "protect national security."

We oppose legislation and administrative action utilizing asset forfeiture laws which enable the confiscation of the private property of persons not involved in the crime. Forfeiture of assets can only be enforced after conviction of the property owner as a penalty for the crime. Such forfeitures must follow full due process of law under criminal prosecution standards.

We oppose the monitoring and controlling of the financial transactions of the people through such proposed laws as "Know Your Customer." Banks should be repositories of treasure and fiduciaries for the people, not enforcers for the State. Any information regarding customer transactions the State obtains from banks must be subject to the traditional Fourth Amendment safeguards.

We support privacy legislation that prohibits private parties from discriminating against individuals who refuse to disclose or obtain a Social Security number. We also call for legislation prohibiting all governmental entities from requiring the use of the Social Security number except for Social Security transactions. Additionally, we call for the repeal of all laws, regulations, and statutes that require the use of the Social Security number for any purpose other than Social Security transactions.




Pornography
Samuel Adams said: "While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."
Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.




Religious Freedom
Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.
We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.

We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.

We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.




Social Security
The Declaration of Independence declares "all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ..."

The Preamble of the US Constitution shows how these rights are to be secured including "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare".

Two clear distinctions should be made here:
1.Provide implies actively and financially supporting, promote implies a more passive approach.
◦For example, I'll promote that we put on a grand feast, but I want you to provide it!
2.General Welfare is not the same as individual Welfare. General Welfare would benefit the people generally; individual Welfare targets a certain segment of society to benefit, such as the poor.
Social Security is a form of individual welfare not authorized in the Constitution.
The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate a Social Security system. The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system. Until the current Social Security system can be responsibly phased out, we propose that:

•The Social Security tax not be a "rainy day" fund which politicians can pirate, or from which they can borrow to cover their errors and pay for their excesses.
•Individuals who have contributed to Social Security be allowed to withdraw those funds and transfer them into an IRA or similar investments under the control of the individual contributor.
•Any sort of merger between the U.S. Social Security System and that of any foreign country be banned, so the distribution of benefits will not go to persons who have not qualified for payments under American law as legal residents.
•Earning limitations on persons aged 62 and over be removed, so that they may earn any amount of additional income without placing their benefits at risk.
•Those provisions of the Social Security system which penalize those born during the "notch years" between 1917 and 1926 be repealed, and that such persons be placed on the same benefit schedules as all other beneficiaries.
We support the right of individuals to choose between private retirement and pension programs, either at their place of employment or independently.




State Sovereignty
The 10th Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution delegated few, enumerated powers to the Federal Government, reserving all remaining powers to the States and the people. Thus, powers of the Federal were the exception.
Our federal republic was created by joint action of the several states. It has been gradually perverted into a socialist machine for federal control in the domestic affairs of the states.

The federal government has no authority to mandate policies relating to state education, natural resources, transportation, private business, housing, and health care, ad infinitum.

We call upon the states to reclaim their legitimate role in federal affairs and legislation (See Amendment 10 United States Constitution) and thus cause the federal government to divest itself of operations not authorized by the Constitution and extract the federal government from such enterprises, whether or not they compete with private enterprise.
 
Statehood
US Constitution, Article I Section 8 Clause 17:
"Congress shall have power …To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…"

Article IV Section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

Article IV Section 4 Clause 3
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (re-enacted under Constitutional authority 1789) defined that all new states appropriately admitted will enter the nation on an equal footing with the original 13 states.
We oppose any effort to confer statehood on the District of Columbia or any representation in Congress comparable to that of an independent state in the federal union.

We oppose efforts to confer statehood upon the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or expand statehood beyond the current fifty states.

We acknowledge that each state's membership in the Union is voluntary.

We support the equal footing doctrine co-equal with the original thirteen states for all states coming into and having entered the Union as states.



Tariffs and Trade
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."
Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others these Constitutional powers. We oppose, therefore, the unconstitutional transfer of authority over U.S. trade policy from Congress to agencies, domestic or foreign, which improperly exercise policy-setting functions with respect to U.S. trade policy.

We favor the abolition of the Office of Special Trade Representative, and insist on the withdrawal of these United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and all other agreements wherein agencies other than the Congress of these United States improperly assume responsibility for establishing American trade policies.

Article I, Section 8 provides that duties, imposts, and excises are legitimate revenue-raising measures on which the United States government may properly rely. We support a tariff based revenue system, as did the Founding Fathers, which was the policy of these United States during most of the nation's history. In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item's cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United States. The cost of production of a U.S. product shall include, but not be limited to, all compensation, including fringe benefits, paid to American workers, and environmental costs of doing business imposed on business by federal, state, and local governments.

Tariffs are not only a constitutional source of revenue, but, wisely administered, are an aid to preservation of the national economy. Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.

We oppose all international trade agreements which have the effect of diminishing America's economic self-sufficiency and of exporting jobs, the loss of which impoverishes American families, undermines American communities, and diminishes America's capacity for economic self-reliance, and the provision of national defense.

We see our country and its workers as more than bargaining chips for multinational corporations and international banks in their ill-conceived and evil New World Order.

We reject the trade concept of normal trade relations (Most Favored Nation status), used to curry favor with regimes whose domestic and international policies are abhorrent to decent people everywhere, and which are in fundamental conflict with the vital interests of these United States of America.

We strongly oppose unconstitutional "Trade Promotion Authority," which transfers the establishment of trade policy from Congress to the Executive branch of government.

In the name of free trade, multi-national corporations have been given tax breaks by the U.S. government which are not available to American businesses, and the money extracted from U.S. taxpayers has been used by the government to subsidize exports and encourage businesses to move abroad. Such improprieties must cease.

The United States government should establish the firm policy that U.S. or multinational businesses investing abroad do so at their own risk. There is no obligation by our Government to protect those businesses with the lives of our service personnel, or the taxes of our citizens.

In the area of national security, foreign interests have been abetted in gaining access to America's high-tech secrets under the guise of commercial enterprise. We propose that technology transfers which compromise national security be made illegal, and urge that all violators be prosecuted. We demand that all weapons systems, military uniforms and equipment purchased for the American military be domestically produced in their entirety along with all their component parts.

We oppose the practice of any officer of the United States government, or spouse thereof, who, subsequent to Federal government employment is employed to represent a foreign government or other foreign entity, public or private, for purposes of influencing public opinion or policy on matters affecting U.S. trade with such foreign government or entity.




Taxes
The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."

In Article I, Section 9, the original document made clear that "no Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." It is moreover established that "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Since 1913, our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property have been abridged and diminished by the imposition on each of us of Federal income, payroll, and estate taxes. This is an unconstitutional Federal assumption of direct taxing authority.

The Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm of the Federal government's present unjust tax system. Citizens, both in groups and as individuals, have repeatedly sought responses from the IRS bureaucracy as to the basis for the agency's tax policies and procedures. No answers have been forthcoming although a responsible government must be answerable to the people and has a duty to those it is supposed to serve.

We propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. We are opposed to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an un-apportioned direct tax.

Moreover, it is our intention to replace, with a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes, the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate taxes.)

To the degree that tariffs on foreign products, and excises, are insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we will offer an apportioned "state-rate tax" in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of these United States, excluding the District of Columbia. Thus, if a state contains 10 percent of the nation's citizens, it will be responsible for assuming payment of 10 percent of the annual deficit.

The effect of this "state-rate tax" will be to encourage politicians to argue for less, rather than more, federal spending, and less state spending as well.

To the extent permitted by the Constitution, we believe that the taxation of corporations is an appropriate source of government revenue. The Supreme Court has defined "income" as a "gain or increase arising from corporate activity or privilege." People are not corporations, and corporations need not be treated as "people" for the purposes of taxation.

There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."

We support the use of motor fuel excise taxes, at rates not in excess of those currently imposed, to be used exclusively for the erection, maintenance, and administration of Federal highways. These taxes should never be used for "demonstration projects", mass transit, or for other non-highway purposes.

We support the use of excise taxes to curb the use of tax dollars for media advertising, and to provide so-called "tax abatements," "tax incentives," and "economic development grants," which are pretexts to raid the public treasury and rob the workingman for the benefit of wealthy interests favored by the politicians.



Terrorism and Personal Liberty
The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
Because we will refer to the fourth and fifth amendments, let's read them in their entirety:

Amendment IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Amendment V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Note there is no exception to these rights provided for war or public danger.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The threat of Terrorism has not been claimed to be a rebellion or an invasion.
America is engaged in an undeclared war with an ill-defined enemy (terrorism), a war which threatens to be never ending, and which is being used to vastly expand government power, particularly that of the executive branch, at the expense of the individual liberties of the American people.

The "war on terrorism" is serving as an excuse for the government to spend beyond its income, expand the Federal bureaucracy, and socialize the nation through taxpayer bailouts of the airlines, subsidies to the giant insurance corporations, and other Federal programs.

We deplore and vigorously oppose legislation and executive action that deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating terrorism" or "protecting national security." Examples of such legislation are the National Security Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the proposed Domestic Securities Enhancement Act (colloquially known as "Patriot II"), and the Military Commissions Act.

The National Security Act is used by the federal government as a shroud to prevent the American people and our elected officials from knowing how much and where our tax dollars are spent from covert operations around the world. The National Security Act prevents the release of Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives, e.g., PDD 25, to the American people and our elected representatives. Not only are many of these used to thwart justice in the name of national security, but some of the operations under this act may threaten our very national sovereignty.

The USA PATRIOT Act permits arrests without warrants and secret detention without counsel, wiretaps without court supervision, searches and seizures without notification to the individual whose property is invaded, and a host of other violations of the legal safeguards our nation has historically developed according to principles descending from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Since we will no longer have a free nation while the federal government (or the governments of the several states, as the federal government may authorize) can violate our historic rights under such laws, we call for the rejection of all such laws and the ceasing of any such further proposals including the aforementioned Domestic Securities Enhancement Act.

The Constitution Party is unalterably opposed to the criminal acts of terrorists, and their organizations, as well as the governments which condone them. Individuals responsible for acts of terrorism must be punished for their crimes, including the infliction of capital punishment where appropriate. In responding to terrorism, however, these United States must avoid acts of retaliation abroad which destroy innocent human lives, creating enmity toward these United States and its people; and

In accord with the views of our Founding Fathers, we must disengage this nation from the international entanglements which generate foreign hatred of these United States, and are used as the excuse for terrorist attacks on America and its people. The 'war on terrorism" is not a proper excuse for perpetual U.S. occupation of foreign lands, military assaults on countries which have not injured us, or perpetual commitment of taxpayer dollars to finance foreign governments.




Veterans
President George Washington stated: "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportionate to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country".
The Constitution Party appreciates the contributions of our servicemen and veterans to the preservation of American freedom. We shall continue to recognize their contributions to the national welfare by providing equitable pay and benefits to our military personnel, and generous health, education, and other benefits to veterans.

We vigorously resist the attempt by any government agency to nullify or reduce earned benefits to veterans and their survivors, including but not limited to, compensation, pensions, education, and health care.




Wage and Price Control
The Declaration of Independence declares the purpose of Government is "to secure these Rights", these unalienable rights such as Liberty.

Nothing in the Constitution, writings of the Founders, or in logic, can imagine a God-given right to earn a specific wage or buy at a specific price.
We deny that civil government has the authority to set wages and prices; so doing is inconsistent with principles of individual liberty and the free market.




Welfare
The Declaration of Independence declares "all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ..."

The Preamble of the US Constitution shows how these rights are to be secured including "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare".

Two clear distinctions should be made here:
1.Provide implies actively and financially supporting, promote implies a more passive approach.
◦For example, I'll promote that we put on a grand feast, but I want you to provide it!
2.General Welfare is not the same as individual Welfare. General Welfare would benefit the people generally; individual Welfare targets a certain segment of society to benefit, such as the poor.
Providing Individual Welfare is not authorized in the Constitution.
God, who endows us with life, liberty, property, and the right to pursue happiness, also exhorts individuals to care for the needy, the sick, the homeless, the aged, and those who are otherwise unable to care for themselves.

America's welfare crisis is a government-induced crisis. Government social and cultural policies have undermined the work ethic, even as the government's economic and regulatory policies have undermined the ability of our citizens to obtain work.

Charity, and provision of welfare to those in need, is not a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Under no circumstances should the taxpayers of these United States be obligated, under penalty of law through forced taxation, to assume the cost of providing welfare for other citizens. Neither should taxpayers be indentured to subsidize welfare for persons who enter these United States illegally.

The message of Christian charity is fundamentally at odds with the concept of welfare maintenance as a right. In many cases, welfare provisions by the Federal government are not only misdirected, but morally destructive. It is the intended purpose of civil government to safeguard life, liberty and property - not to redistribute wealth. Such redistribution is contrary to the Biblical command against theft.

We encourage individuals, families, churches, civic groups and other private organizations, to fulfill their personal responsibility to help those in need. "
 
So... the answer is you don't know.
I'll answer that for you.
It doesn't.

But thanks for spamming.
Did you even read what you cut and paste?
 

Thank you for a video demonstrating how childish leftists can be.

Still doesn't show a pattern, let alone a strong national opposition, as you are claiming. In fact, it is, at best, tangential to the lies you are trying to prop up.

Frankly, it is likely those people shouting are simply paid Union thugs who rode in on the same bus to foster the illusion of a grass roots movement where none exists. That is the MO on the Left.

The truth is there is NOT the strong backlash against the Ryan plan the Left and their useful idiots are lying about.
 
Oh, BTW, we have had the whole "wall 'o' text" dodge tried by far better people then you and it only hurt their credibility and the argument they were trying to back up.
 
Every hear of Hauser's Law?
In economics, Hauser's Law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate

The notion that tax rate reductions lead to a loss of tax revenue or that tax rate increases lead to an increase in tax revenue is moronic.

Anyone basing their argument on it only shows that have NO understanding of basic economics.

Tax cuts do not "cost" anything. Anyone saying that is either an economic illiterate or a propagandist attempting to mislead.
 
Every hear of Hauser's Law?
In economics, Hauser's Law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate

The notion that tax rate reductions lead to a loss of tax revenue or that tax rate increases lead to an increase in tax revenue is moronic.

Anyone basing their argument on it only shows that have NO understanding of basic economics.

Tax cuts do not "cost" anything. Anyone saying that is either an economic illiterate or a propagandist attempting to mislead.


So tax rate reduction ( reduction meaning " less" and tax meaning " money" ) doesn't mean less money.....Am I dealing with Sarah Palin here?

AND tax rate increase( Increase meaning "more" and tax meaning " money" )
doesn't mean more revenue...... I think you should not defund Sesame street, you should pay the count double time to teach you numbers.



With that out of the way, here's a humdinger from Hugh James "Jim" Saxton, a Republican that represented the Third Congressional District of New Jersey in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993-2008

"" As discussion continues over the federal government's budget for fiscal year 2000, a large number of political leaders are calling for some form of tax relief. Three factors are contributing to this push for tax reduction: first, the federal budget is in surplus for the first time in decades. It is financially possible to have tax reduction without incurring the political problems associated with budget deficits and/or forced reductions in federal expenditure. Second, federal tax revenues are at a historic high in relation to the nation's output, and many taxpayers feel the federal government is imposing an increasingly unreasonable burden on them, thereby increasing the political appeal of a tax cut. Some areas of taxation - e.g., the taxation of savings and capital - are particularly high and burdensome. Third, some advocates of tax reduction feel that if federal revenues are not soon reduced, that political forces will operate to increase spending, crowding out private sector activity. History suggests that this possibility is indeed very real.1
This study argues that tax reduction would have very significant positive welfare effects on the American economy. Based on previous research by a large number of scholars, it is reasonable to foresee the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars of new output being created with a significant reduction in taxes. While it is true that from a Keynesian, demand-side perspective, the case for a tax reduction is rather weak, there are compelling arguments that suggest that lowering taxes would promote economic welfare. A tax reduction that approximates the magnitude of the 1998 or projected 1999 budget surplus would provide benefits to Americans measured in tens of billions of dollars annually.


The Economic Impact of A Tax Cut: The Demand Side
What would be the economic impact of a tax reduction on the aggregate demand for goods and services? Standard Keynesian analysis would predict that a tax reduction would increase disposable income, leading to an increase in consumption spending, the precise amount depending on the marginal propensity to consume. The initial increase in autonomous consumption would be subject to an expenditure multiplier, leading to a significant increase (conceivably measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars) in the equilibrium level of money or nominal total output. Traditional Keynesian analysis suggests that such fiscal stimulus potentially could translate into significantly higher real output of goods and services as well.
There are a number of problems with this analysis, however. First, the size of initial expenditure increase depends at least in part of the nature of the tax reduction. More important, there is the real possibility of some "crowding out" of private expenditure associated with some increase in interest rates associated with a reduction or elimination of the budget surplus - the previous positive amounts of government savings would disappear, leading the supply of loanable funds in the economy to fall. Thus, the "multiplier" might be partly illusionary. ""

AND

"' There is considerable evidence that taxes impose a deadweight loss or burden on members of society. Reductions in taxes, then, reduce this burden and thus improve the economic welfare. While the precise magnitude of this excess burden varies with time, place and the form of taxation, it is probably a reasonable generalization to conclude that about 40 cents of each dollar of taxes at the margin represents a deadweight loss to society. If a tax reduction equal to the budget surplus contemplated for fiscal year 1999 were implemented, society would derive benefits worth about $32 billion annually, or nearly $120 per person ($480 for a family of four). A tax reduction of $80 billion (less than five percent of total federal tax revenues) would provide economic benefits over the next decade conservatively valued at $287 billion, discounting future benefits to the present using an appropriate interest rate. If Martin Feldstein's analytically strong evaluation is correct, that present value rises dramatically, to perhaps over one trillion dollars. Thus a strong case can be made for significant federal tax reduction as part of a fiscal plan for the next several years. ""
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tax/reduce.htm


BOOOYYYYY they were so right, the country is doing much better now than in the 90's WHEN TAXES WERE HIGHER..........morons, freaking morons !!!
 
OH and here's more on the wonderfull person that backed the above mentioned masterpiece, James "Jim" Saxton.......

Jack Abramoff's money
Recently Saxton donated to charity thousands of dollars in campaign contributions made by lobbyist Jack Abramoff.


House Armed Services Committee earmarks
A review of funding requests by the House Armed Services Committee revealed millions of dollars worth of earmark trade-offs for members' campaign contributers. Saxton, ranking member of the Air and Land Forces subcommittee, received the most contributions, totaling $91,000, from companies' employees and political action committees (PACs) for whom he requested tens of millions of dollars in appropriations. The information on earmark requets became available for the first time due to new ethics rules passed by the House when the Democratic party took control of the chamber in January 2007.
 
picture.php
 
If you earn $100 and I tax you 15%, I make $15.
If you earned $200 that year and I only tax you 10%, I've just made $20.

If GDP increases when tax rates are reduced, revenue increases because your taxing MORE income at a lower rate.

If GDP falls when taxes are raised, your getting a greater share of less money.
 
If you earn $100 and I tax you 15%, I make $15.
If you earned $200 that year and I only tax you 10%, I've just made $20.

If GDP increases when tax rates are reduced, revenue increases because your taxing MORE income at a lower rate.

If GDP falls when taxes are raised, your getting a greater share of less money.

Well, now imagine if everyone paid a straight tax of 18% of the annual income for say 3 years in a row, not tax loopholes, no get out of paying, just 3 years in a row, just from the oil companies alone that's around 40 billion, every little bit helps.
 
Well, now imagine if everyone paid a straight tax of 18% of the annual income for say 3 years in a row, not tax loopholes, no get out of paying, just 3 years in a row, just from the oil companies alone that's around 40 billion, every little bit helps.

I don't disagree with your premise that the tax rate should be uniformly applied without any loopholes. I agree with that. That complicated tax system gives politicians power and enables them to sell interest. They can punish or benefit favored groups, and this is usually a selfish political calculation.

However, jacking up the rate, especially without massive spending cuts, will be counter productive.

It's important to recognize that changes in tax policy have a direct influence in the economy. This is no different than when a city increases the sin taxes. As they raise that fee, people usually buy less. And, if you pay an additional $5 in taxes for a pack of cigarettes, you're probably going to buy less stuff at the convenience store while you're there. Tax policy influences behavior and investment.

However, all of the talks this past year about "tax cuts" were disingenuous. There were no significant tax cuts being debate, merely leaving the tax policy as it had been since 2003. So not "cutting taxes" actually would have amounted to significant tax hikes.

At this point, I think it's increasingly unproductive to even try to debate tax rates and policy within the current system. It is wildy corrupt, inefficient, complicated, and it's time we just replaced it with a more transparent method of funding the federal government, be it a flat tax or a consumption tax.

Ultimately, this goes back to the role of government.
You will never be able to raise enough tax revenue to fund the ever increasing expectations of government. And when you realize that, you have to go back and examine what the purpose of the government is. Is the U.S. government designed to provide cradle to grave nurturing? Is it supposed to be an agent of wealth redistribution? No. Most people will find that the role of the federal government is rather narrowly defined.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top